[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?

>>>>> "HM" == Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> writes:

    HM> man, have you *read* the thing? 


    HM> Ok, I'll try to summarize the summary :-) ::

I asked for a particular DFSG term which is violated and explanation of
the violation.

    HM> Section 2 (VERBATIM COPYING):
    HM>   1. is not restricted to distribution (non-free for a lot of
    HM> reasons discussed in other recent threads here in -legal, the
    HM> QPL one)

I'm sorry, I don't have the necessary resources to read all the long
threads here.  IMO the position statement should be clear and contain
proper explanation of the DFSG violation in its text.

    HM>   2. restricts redistribution (in a DRM'd medium): DFSG#1

     The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
     selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
     software distribution containing programs from several different
     sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for
     such sale.

Why does this state the license must permit distribution on a DRM

    HM>   3. outlaws even chmod -r in a normal unix fs

You probably refer to "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or
control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
distribute.".  IANAL, so I don't know whether this applies to `chmod -R'
and similar cases (e.g. `chmod -R' *may* actually mean you simply stop
distributing the file and not that you obstruct or control its reading).
I miss explanation here.

    HM> Section 3 (Copying in quantity):
    HM>   Forces to distribute transparent (source) along with the
    HM> opaque (binary) form: forced distribution of goes against the
    HM> spirit of the DFSG, altough not its letter. 

So this doesn't violate DFSG.

    HM> Apply similarities with the Desert Island test.

I don't know what Desert Island test is.

    HM> And, of course Invariant Sections; which is not of interest in
    HM> the case, because it seems that everybody _knows_ why those are
    HM> non-DFSG-free.

And additionally it's not of interest in the case, since I've explicitly
said I ask about cases without Invariant Sections.

Please note I understand and agree there are some problems with GFDL.
What I do not understand is, how and why DFSG is violated.  It's not any
better after reading your answers. :-|


Milan Zamazal

As is typical in civilized (i.e., non-corporate) email discussions, my
remarks *follow* (not precede) their context.
                                   -- Branden Robinson in debian-legal

Reply to: